Month, Day: Might, Names (Grace)
In SAQ #48, we see a reference to ether: If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.
Some apologize for this use of the word. Why? Well, using it nowadays opens one up to much derision.
But, consider that `Abdu'l-Bahá may have known about that which he was talking. SAQ #48 explains the differences between plants and animals, as well as those between animals and man. Earlier, in SAQ #16, concern was raised about how symbols are required "to convey intellectual conceptions" which 'ether' in a sense is, a symbol, that is.
Lately, the Economist used 'ether' in a review of Frank Wilczek's book; the Economist had this to say about what Wilczek calls a 'grid': "What is perceived as empty space turns out to be a new kind of ether, a patchwork of quantum fields teeming with spontaneous activity, and the fundamental building block of nature."
The wit of the Economist notwithstanding, there are many other expositions, based upon very respectable worldviews, that dance around this subject that was briefly covered in SAQ #48; actually, no apology is necessary.
Remarks:
08/01/2012
--Ether,
in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the
matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
08/23/2009 -- I'll make it a little stronger. `Abdu'l-Bahá knew what he was talking about (SAQ #48): For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. This is fairly definite.
06/05/2009 -- Light very much is something to study in this context.
11/17/2008 -- Consider Light and other topics for an extended science.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mathematics builds from bottom up (via axioms) but uses a top down logic; that is, there is a distinct difference between the creative imagination of the mathematician and the grunge processing of the automated theorem approaches provided by the computer. These two methods overlap; of course, there are myriads of combinations of the human versus machine, including cyborg alternatives not yet considered or tested.
Yet, there is an analog of the axiom set that is top down, in which it is sufficient to know God. That is what we need to show; how do we map this into mathematics and science in an acceptable manner?
Now, 'acceptable' would have both the operational and the philosophical in its basis.
Post a Comment